Do you really believe that?
I'm sure UFP and StarFleet always care about "Efficiency".
Spoilers Prodigy ship revealed
- Thread starter NCC-73515
- Start date
I'm sure UFP and StarFleet always care about "Efficiency".
Yes, I do believe that.
I'm thinking that with the practically unlimited power source that is installed in every starship, efficiency is only a concern when the "plot" calls for it.
And that's mostly when they are either being attacked by something or someone which causes the power to be cutoff.
(or an idiot turns off the power on purpose)
We've seen by the time of TNG how practically every section of a ship can be sealed off with energy barriers and there's always more than enough power to even cover actual holes in the hull during combat.
I'm thinking that with the practically unlimited power source that is installed in every starship, efficiency is only a concern when the "plot" calls for it.
And that's mostly when they are either being attacked by something or someone which causes the power to be cutoff.
(or an idiot turns off the power on purpose)
We've seen by the time of TNG how practically every section of a ship can be sealed off with energy barriers and there's always more than enough power to even cover actual holes in the hull during combat.
Yup... but, in case of a power drain/loss (which can and DOES happen), perhaps having a safety net of an actual thin hulkhead falling into place to seal the brig section where the forcefield used to be would be a good idea.
The communal quarters, plus the Janeway hologram and the small size of the ship (not much larger than the Defiant class), do seem to suggest that the Protostar was designed to be a cadet training ship.
Hell, even the ship's name has kind of a cadetish feel to it ("proto," as in "prototype" Starfleet crew)
Side note: Does the Protostar have a dedication plaque? If so, where is it? I'm curious to know what its class name is.
If it's an NX, the class name is probably Protostar.
I find it nice that the legacy that started the NX Prefix Registry started with
NX α Alpha
NX β Beta
NX Δ Delta
NX-Class
Then NX became the 'experimental Prefix' that is attached to any new class of experimental vessels before they're formally added to the registery and gain a "NCC" Prefix.
Some how, I think they're honoring the NX-class by reusing the NX Prefix to honor all the new experimental test vessels.
United Earth days had different traditions and naming conventions.If that's the case, why didn't the NX-01 Enterprise spawn an Enterprise class?
When it became the StarFleet of the UFP, some certain traditions changed =D
Why wouldn't NX-01 and NX-02 have been Enterprise class?
Class names were never mentioned in TOS. They supposedly still existed, even if we can argue between Starship and Constitution. Distinctions mattered on occasion, though: a full starship was better than a Class IV stardrive vessel. Similarly, Archer might frighten his enemies by pointing out his ship is of the NX class, much like a skipper today would feel about having an AEGIS class ship instead of a non-AEGIS one.
We never really heard of a different naming convention in ENT: the Earth Starfleet did have a Neptune class of ships, in the "familiar", "traditional" style, and perhaps a Triton class, too. But UESF did have traditions differing from UFP SF ones. For the 2150s, NX clearly didn't stand for experimental, since Archer's ship wouldn't have been the first-ever such and wouldn't have warranted a -01. But Archer's ship apparently was UESF's first-ever deep space eXplorer, so having NX stand for that makes plenty of sense. It also ties into current naval traditions on pennant codes, with the letters specificying mission and/aka type of equip (much like BB or DDG), rather than the operating organization (all of Starfleet seems to have NCC later on, regardless of mission or type).
For UFP SF, NX might mean prototype (much like Y-planes in USAF), or testbed (much like X-planes), or both. Or it could additionally cover "special purposes", such as dedicated training ships, if that better fits our evidence! Nobody has carved "NX=prototype" or "NX=experimental" in stone for us yet, thankfully enough.
Timo Saloniemi
Class names were never mentioned in TOS. They supposedly still existed, even if we can argue between Starship and Constitution. Distinctions mattered on occasion, though: a full starship was better than a Class IV stardrive vessel. Similarly, Archer might frighten his enemies by pointing out his ship is of the NX class, much like a skipper today would feel about having an AEGIS class ship instead of a non-AEGIS one.
We never really heard of a different naming convention in ENT: the Earth Starfleet did have a Neptune class of ships, in the "familiar", "traditional" style, and perhaps a Triton class, too. But UESF did have traditions differing from UFP SF ones. For the 2150s, NX clearly didn't stand for experimental, since Archer's ship wouldn't have been the first-ever such and wouldn't have warranted a -01. But Archer's ship apparently was UESF's first-ever deep space eXplorer, so having NX stand for that makes plenty of sense. It also ties into current naval traditions on pennant codes, with the letters specificying mission and/aka type of equip (much like BB or DDG), rather than the operating organization (all of Starfleet seems to have NCC later on, regardless of mission or type).
For UFP SF, NX might mean prototype (much like Y-planes in USAF), or testbed (much like X-planes), or both. Or it could additionally cover "special purposes", such as dedicated training ships, if that better fits our evidence! Nobody has carved "NX=prototype" or "NX=experimental" in stone for us yet, thankfully enough.
Timo Saloniemi
It was actually “Ennecks” class, that many mistake for “NX”. 
Yes it was.
It was actually “Ennecks” class, that many mistake for “NX”.
Annex class, actually.
LOL the Species 8472 Bioship was a little larger than a goddamn Runabout? Wowwww.....Even the Daedalus Class feels too big IMO.
This is what I think the relative scaling should be about:
This was a quick & dirty copy/resize/paste job. So forgive some of the laziness.
The part I focused on was relative size scaling to everybody with a 1 pixel ~= 1 meter.
Yes, I know it's a modification of somebody else's relative scaling chart, I did check to make sure that they got the general gist of the lengths (from bow to stern) to be relatively correct, which they seem to have done.
EDIT: Add in Small Shuttle Craft & La Sirena for size/scale comparisons
Is that accurate size for the California class? I thought its saucer was about Excelsior sized.
I think the Protostar is small, but the bridge I think is scaled too small in that picture, especially in comparison to other bridges/ bridge domes. I think it's around Nova-class based off bridge scale. Maybe a little smaller.
Yup, why do you think Species 8472 was schooling the Borg, besides being unable to do damage, one little ship could own the giant Borg Cube and 9x of them become "Team DeathStar" by combining their beams and can crack open a planet. It doesn't "Vaporize" the planet like the Death Star, but it's closer to the Xyston Class Star Destroyer's Axial Super Laser from "The Rise of the SkyWalker" where the beam bores into the planet and crack the planet apart.
Less powerful than the OG Death Star, but more than enough to bust apart planets.
Nope, closer to Ambassador Sized
That's what I think based off the data I have, I'll revise the scale once I get official data from the show runners or eagle moss.
Yeah, but so was Neptune class. Hence my preferred interpretation that "NX" is analogous to "AEGIS" when it comes to navyspeak: it denotes novel and impressive special capabilities, as is appropriate with both NX and AEGIS, but does not detract from classic naming.
We get the following three dialogue references to NX class:
"Fortunate Son":
"E2":
Both the "Fortunate Son" references are perfect matches for an AEGIS boast. Also, having NX ships on the drawing boards could be literally taken to indicate those need to be drawn - that is, they are going to be of a different NX class, just like there are half a dozen distinct AEGIS classes out there nowadays.
The "E2" reference is analogous to Spock in "DDM" deciding that the Constellation is "by configuration, a starship". Apparently, it's possible to tell at a distance, without visuals - unlike with "ordinary" classes such as Neptune, the telling of which apart from a Triton or a Poseidon or whatever might be as laborious as differentiating between Ticonderoga, Burke and Kongo today. That is, not difficult at all with binoculars and good eyes (they have distinct shapes), but not something you do by capacity (they all have basically the same EM emissions, say, and would fire the same stuff at ya).
Timo Saloniemi
We're built on speculation. And the black market kidney business in the board's basement.
Which reminds me. Gotta return that call.
Which reminds me. Gotta return that call.
Exactly. We have multiple instances in dialogue where the class of the Enterprise is mentioned. The only time another class is mentioned were the Y-class & J-class freighters from the ECS, and a (presumably Earth Starfleet) warp 2 Neptune class survey ship. So what if the nomenclature is different for survey ships? The NX class is still the NX class.
Similar threads
